4 ms·

I shall consult the expert team at 4chan /s But seriously "We've been told we can't ask to stop jamming, and to just put everyone on headings."... people inbou

I shall consult the expert team at 4chan /s But seriously "We've been told we can't ask to stop jamming, and to just put everyone on headings."... people inbound not ready for this can run out of fuel. Maybe the right passive aggressive response could have been to simply set a really large diameter TFR to keep civilian aircraft away assuming people check NOTAMs.

nitrogen 5y ago
simply set a really large diameter I'm not particularly familiar with aviation, so is the radius in this comment (445NM at FL400) considered large? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28833002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28833002)
- LinuxBender 5y ago
  Yes that is very large however that is just an advisory not a TFR. [1] Only those with special permission and Harrison Ford may enter into a TFR. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_flight_restriction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_flight_restriction
ceejayoz 5y ago
> people inbound not ready for this can run out of fuel Shouldn't you always be ready for a GPS (or other instrument) failure?
- LinuxBender 5y ago
  Yes that's even part of the verbal/written test. You have to calculate fuel requirements to different distances and they give you options that would be technically right but check to see if you pick the conservative approach in the event of this very situation. If you want to see how many people toss that knowledge out the window listen to some of the videos at VASAvation [1] and instead choose to land on freeways, city streets, farm fields, etc... Not all of them are due to fuel, but some are. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/c/VASAviation/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/VASAviation/videos
- loeg 5y ago
  Instrument failures are rare and might impact a handful of aircraft; GPS jamming impacts every aircraft in the vicinity. ATC might have capacity to plan low fuel-consumption flight heading paths for a small number of aircraft, but not 100%?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    ATC / radio failures happen. If ATC can't plan a route for you, you're still the pilot in command and responsible for finding a diversion airport and getting down safely, and for having had enough fuel to deal with traffic while doing so.
    - loeg 5y ago
      Sure -- I don't think the concern is literally falling out of the sky, so much as having to divert to another airport that isn't being jammed (inconvenient). But we're speculating on the basis of a vague complaint.
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  Of course you should be prepared for accidents, but it's quite another to be so prepared accidents don't turn into emergencies.
- RattleyCooper 5y ago
  Would you be ok with a commercial passenger flight operating with 1 of the 2 engines completely disabled? It's technically designed to fly with 1 engine, so what's the problem? Knocking out a pilot's GPS gives them one less tool in the event that other instruments fail. It's like saying "shouldn't you always be ready for backup hydraulics to fail?". Taking a backup system offline isn't an ideal situation.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > Would you be ok with a commercial passenger flight operating with 1 of the 2 engines completely disabled? Yes. They are designed for that, and have procedures in place for when it happens, just as they do for a GPS failure. (Specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS) I would not be OK with a pilot who didn’t plan for the possibility of engine failure. If you run out of fuel because your GPS is jammed, there’s a good chance you’d have run out of fuel if it failed in another more normal fashion.
    - RattleyCooper 5y ago
      You miss the point entirely. No commercial aircraft is going to be allowed to take off with only 1/2 engines in operation. If one goes out in flight they'll usually find a place to land bc it's understood that if that last engine dies then that's a bad situation. Which is the entire reason they have backups in the first place. I'm not arguing about whether it's possible, I'm arguing whether it's smart. Airplanes have backups, and yes they can run on those backups, or else what would even be the point of having them? This kind of goes without saying... If planes are DESIGNED to have backup systems, in case there is a failure, then do you think it's smart to arbitrarily remove one of said backup systems?
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        > No commercial aircraft is going to be allowed to take off with only 1/2 engines in operation. That's a different question. If you're knowingly flying into GPS jamming - these jamming operations are apparently announced via NOTAMs (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28833002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28833002) - you should be planning ahead even more. A pilot is responsible for having enough fuel in case of an emergency, like the GPS unit crapping out. Anyone running out of fuel due to GPS jamming was ill prepared for other emergencies.
- yutyut 5y ago
  Yes and especially because planned GPS jams are published in NOTAMS, in my experience, well in advance of the event. Ignorance isn’t really an excuse.

nitrogen 5y ago

simply set a really large diameter I'm not particularly familiar with aviation, so is the radius in this comment (445NM at FL400) considered large? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28833002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28833002)

LinuxBender 5y ago
Yes that is very large however that is just an advisory not a TFR. [1] Only those with special permission and Harrison Ford may enter into a TFR. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_flight_restriction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_flight_restriction

ceejayoz 5y ago

> people inbound not ready for this can run out of fuel Shouldn't you always be ready for a GPS (or other instrument) failure?

LinuxBender 5y ago
Yes that's even part of the verbal/written test. You have to calculate fuel requirements to different distances and they give you options that would be technically right but check to see if you pick the conservative approach in the event of this very situation. If you want to see how many people toss that knowledge out the window listen to some of the videos at VASAvation [1] and instead choose to land on freeways, city streets, farm fields, etc... Not all of them are due to fuel, but some are. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/c/VASAviation/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/VASAviation/videos
loeg 5y ago
Instrument failures are rare and might impact a handful of aircraft; GPS jamming impacts every aircraft in the vicinity. ATC might have capacity to plan low fuel-consumption flight heading paths for a small number of aircraft, but not 100%?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  ATC / radio failures happen. If ATC can't plan a route for you, you're still the pilot in command and responsible for finding a diversion airport and getting down safely, and for having had enough fuel to deal with traffic while doing so.
  - loeg 5y ago
    Sure -- I don't think the concern is literally falling out of the sky, so much as having to divert to another airport that isn't being jammed (inconvenient). But we're speculating on the basis of a vague complaint.
SiempreViernes 5y ago
Of course you should be prepared for accidents, but it's quite another to be so prepared accidents don't turn into emergencies.
RattleyCooper 5y ago
Would you be ok with a commercial passenger flight operating with 1 of the 2 engines completely disabled? It's technically designed to fly with 1 engine, so what's the problem? Knocking out a pilot's GPS gives them one less tool in the event that other instruments fail. It's like saying "shouldn't you always be ready for backup hydraulics to fail?". Taking a backup system offline isn't an ideal situation.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > Would you be ok with a commercial passenger flight operating with 1 of the 2 engines completely disabled? Yes. They are designed for that, and have procedures in place for when it happens, just as they do for a GPS failure. (Specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS) I would not be OK with a pilot who didn’t plan for the possibility of engine failure. If you run out of fuel because your GPS is jammed, there’s a good chance you’d have run out of fuel if it failed in another more normal fashion.
  - RattleyCooper 5y ago
    You miss the point entirely. No commercial aircraft is going to be allowed to take off with only 1/2 engines in operation. If one goes out in flight they'll usually find a place to land bc it's understood that if that last engine dies then that's a bad situation. Which is the entire reason they have backups in the first place. I'm not arguing about whether it's possible, I'm arguing whether it's smart. Airplanes have backups, and yes they can run on those backups, or else what would even be the point of having them? This kind of goes without saying... If planes are DESIGNED to have backup systems, in case there is a failure, then do you think it's smart to arbitrarily remove one of said backup systems?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > No commercial aircraft is going to be allowed to take off with only 1/2 engines in operation. That's a different question. If you're knowingly flying into GPS jamming - these jamming operations are apparently announced via NOTAMs (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28833002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28833002) - you should be planning ahead even more. A pilot is responsible for having enough fuel in case of an emergency, like the GPS unit crapping out. Anyone running out of fuel due to GPS jamming was ill prepared for other emergencies.
yutyut 5y ago
Yes and especially because planned GPS jams are published in NOTAMS, in my experience, well in advance of the event. Ignorance isn’t really an excuse.